I'm sure other members want a chance to comment on the AronRa and joelmoravek discussion so I hope I'm not overstepping making this thread. Admins are, of course, free to correct me on this and make any changes they seem fit.

I think the common etiquette is that the persons whos discussion is commented on don't post on the nut gallery thread? Or do I remember wrong? Or was that only the debate section? I'm sure someone will set me straight on this.

Anyways one thing caught my eye:

joelmoravek wrote:That video did it again. All it said was there was an ancient star that exploded from swirling dust and gravity. You scientifically can't tell me where it all came from. It's circular reasoning. So it boils down to this, you believe "in the beginning dirt", and I believe "In the beginning God." God created everything, it's as simple as that. Our universe is to complex to say that it came to be by accident, it needed a designer. God created everything and here we are. It's as simple as that.

Why are there two planets and six moons that we know about that are spinning backwards?

Apparently this is with regards to angular momentum left over from the Big Bang? I wonder if he's just religigurtitating this quote from somewhere without actually giving it any thought... likely I'd say. Apparently he's unaware that localized events can change the spin of things?

Why are there two planets and six moons that we know about that are spinning backwards?

Apparently this is with regards to angular momentum left over from the Big Bang? I wonder if he's just religigurtitating this quote from somewhere without actually giving it any thought... likely I'd say. Apparently he's unaware that localized events can change the spin of things?

Why are there two planets and six moons that we know about that are spinning backwards?

Apparently this is with regards to angular momentum left over from the Big Bang? I wonder if he's just religigurtitating this quote from somewhere without actually giving it any thought... likely I'd say. Apparently he's unaware that localized events can change the spin of things?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think the Big Bang/inflation of the universe would impart angular momentum. I would think angular momentum would have been imparted by gravitational attraction.

Rofl that is some confused mess. He seems to be confusing the origin of the universe, with the formation of the solar sytem.

Also, there are multiple possible models that explain how some moons and planets end up with unusual rotations, we just don't know which one is correct. When we have not yet found out, then we just haven't found out. Some times there are things we don't know. For example, I don't know the cure for cancer. That doesn't mean the cure for cancer is God. At some point, we didn't have vaccines against smallpox. Today we do. So the cure for smallpox wasn't God.

So when it comes to the state of knowledge regarding the particular rotational axis and directs of some of the moons and planets, why the hell should that even matter? It's not that anyone runs around with faith and believes any one particular model is the one true correct model. Nor does the fact that we have yet to determine which, if any of those models, is the correct one, somehow mean or imply God must have made the solar system (much less the universe).

Nor does it imply that we don't know that solar systems form by accretion of dust and gas. We don't HAVE to know EVERYTHING, to know SOMETHING with a high degree of confidence. His whole argument is built on a faulty premise. That we must know everything to an absolute level of detail, to be able to say with a rational level of confidence that in general, the solar system (and other star systems) formed by accretion of gas and dust under mutual gravitational attraction.

What joelmoravek needs to do, is show that there is no way that the solar system could form with some planets and moons ending up with opposite rotational axes. So far, he still has all the work ahead of him. He has stated his conclusion (there is no way that the solar system could form with some planets and moons ending up with opposite rotational axes), but have yet to argue even a single sentence for it.

Joel appears to have some major misunderstanding on various areas of cosmology, almost to the point of comedic exaggeration. His most basic understanding of what BBT is is fundamentally wrong. I assume this'll be one of those threads that'll go in numerous circles.

Why are there two planets and six moons that we know about that are spinning backwards?

Apparently this is with regards to angular momentum left over from the Big Bang? I wonder if he's just religigurtitating this quote from somewhere without actually giving it any thought... likely I'd say. Apparently he's unaware that localized events can change the spin of things?

"Interesting", you say?

I say Hovind.

I'm pretty sure he has that canard from straight up old-school Kent Hovind. I seem to remember a video about it, but I'm not sure I'll be able to dig it up.

Honestly, this does not seem worth your time AronRa, It would be better to let joelmoravek watch something like Crash Course: Big History, have him take notes, than have him ask you any follow up questions. Otherwise, it appears to me that joelmoravek is just going to jump around aimlessly JAQing off.

Rumraket wrote:Rofl that is some confused mess. He seems to be confusing the origin of the universe, with the formation of the solar sytem.

He's getting that too straight from Kent Hovind. "Doctor" Hovind has a clip (debunked a thousand times in youtube) where he talks about how the universe was spinning in the beginning. At the same time he's showing pictures from a text book that is quite clearly talking about the formation of the Solar System. I don't know if he is actually that stupid that he thinks those are the same thing (they might as well be in the creationist model) or if he is actually knowingly dishonest.

"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time." “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire

If the spin of planets, galaxies, etc., came from the fact that the big bang matter was spinning when it blew up, then the conservation of angular momentum demands that all planets be spinning in the same direction. Since some planets and moons spin in a retrograde motion, the big bang is disproved.Source:

The claim is based on so much ignorance and so many misunderstandings that it is hard to know where to begin.The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding).The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos. Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions. Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations. Solar systems within galaxies have still different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.

If the big bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.